One of the leading factors behind the Guardian’s institutional pro-Palestinian bias is their refusal to take Palestinians seriously as agents of their own fate – a failure to grant Palestinians agency which invariably leads to a mono-causal, Israeli focused explanation which is fundamentally ahistorical, thus grossly misleading readers on the root cause of the conflict
With elections looming, Jews face at least the possibility that the country could soon be led by an opposition leader that 86% of the community believe is personally antisemitic, a scenario that some believe represents nothing less than an “existential threat” to Jewish life in the UK.
Though we haven’t read Weiss’s book and don’t know the specifics of her argument, if she was broadly asserting that Muslims in Europe are, on average, significantly more antisemitic than non-Muslims in the continent, she’s certainly on solid empirical ground.
Once again, we see that a Guardian op-ed accusing Israel of systematic racism does not hold up to critical scrutiny.
If the Independent wants to be taken seriously as a respectable anti-racist publication, they need call out antisemitic tropes advanced by extremists, world leaders…and even their own correspondents.
it’s interesting that on the same day the Indy published Barghouti’s pro-BDS op-ed, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief published a report linking BDS to antisemitism, noting, for instance, the frequent use of antisemitic tropes by BDS activists – an unprecedented report contradicting Barghouti’s narrative that the Indy naturally failed to cover.
There’s a new player within the Western Arabic-language media universe: Independent Arabia – a joint venture of the UK based Independent and the Saudi media group SRMG, with ties to the Saudi state. Unfortunately, so far it’s shown little commitment to western journalistic standards, and often prefers following Arab newspapers’ preference for parroting anti-Israel propaganda.
The implicit argument that the religious background alone of David Friedman and Jared Kushner renders them biased, and may help explain US policy, is a toxic and racist charge that should have no place in mainstream British publications.
To their credit, shortly after notifying the Financial Times journalist of this error, the passage was revised, and no longer alleges that Oslo committed Israel to the creation of a Palestinian state.
The original article included the wild and completely unsubstantiated claim that, upon invading Lebanon in 1982, the IDF rounded up “all males” as young as 9 years old.
At 2:50 pm Israeli time, the Independent published an article about a proposed Israeli law that would have installed cameras at all polling stations. However, the article was outdated, as, hours before the Indy published their piece, the bill in question was defeated in committee.
Though the Telegraph is normally responsible when it comes to avoiding language that could be seen as antisemitic, this particular sentence clearly serves to legitimise the historically toxic dual loyalty trope, codified as antisemitic by the IHRA Working Definition.
The main point – one that we’ve made continuously at this blog when getting corrections from UK outlets suggesting that Tel Aviv was Israel’s capital – is that, regardless of the question over diplomatic recognition, Jerusalem has been Israel’s official capital since 1949. It is the seat of government, and the city where the Knesset, Supreme Court, Prime Minster’s office and most government ministries are located.
Sky News Arabia did not address the terror attack directly at all. However, after three days, in a report entitled “Israel avenges the ‘Dolev attack’ with 300 houses in the settlements”, it falsely described the innocent victim of the attack as “a settler”,
All of the British publications we surveyed ignored the UN report criticising the Palestinian Authority, despite the fact that most of the outlets routinely report on the UN’s egregiously disproportionate reports critical of Israel.
Though we contacted Daily Mail editors to ask for an editor’s note acknowledging the error, in light of the fact that the claim was made in an actual paper map that nearly one million Britons received (and not merely online), the damage can’t really be undone.
Our analysis showed that, based on our review of other news outlets that published a version of that same AP article, the Guardian was the only one that omitted AP’s paragraph noting the Palestinian violence which caused the clashes.
Other than the Guardian, every news outlet we surveyed that published a version of the same AP report included that original paragraph noting the Palestinian violence which caused the clashes on Sunday – providing another example of how the Guardian routinely omits important facts in order to obfuscate Palestinian culpability.
Those Labour activists who advocate for anti-Zionism (an opposition to the existence of a Jewish state) are doing just that by demanding that, for acceptance into their ‘progressive’ community, Jews renounce and abandon a key component of their Jewish identity.
We complained about the omission to ITV News, encouraged our followers to do the same, and directly tweeted their international editor – all of which eventually resulted in the addition of the following new sentence to the article.